User talk:Apokryltaros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 1 /User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 2


Wakaleo vanderleuri[edit]

I have merged Wakaleo vanderleueri with Wakaleo vanderleuri due to the former being a misspelling of the latter. As it was my first ever merge, I would like your help in verifying that the merge went correctly and any tags were put in their appropriate places as the help page on merges isn't to clear on which talk page to add the old merge full template to. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Everything appears to be shipshape: congratulations on a mission accomplished.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I just made a few copy-edits to this article. Is there a reason why "wombats" is in the plural and "the koala" is in the singular? If not, which would be better, "the wombat and the koala" or "wombats and koalas"?  – Corinne (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
"Wombats" there is plural to imply how there is more than one extant species of wombat, and "the koala" is singular to imply how there is only one extant species of koala--Mr Fink (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
(Just saw this.) What do you think of adding "the" before "wombats" so that it reads:
  • ...; its closest living relatives are the wombats and the koala?
 – Corinne (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Montane ecosystems[edit]

Hello, Apokryltaros – I was just looking at the latest edit to Montane ecosystems, and I see it was the addition of an image, a photo of a road, presumably at high altitude, with some trees on either side of the road, in the mountains of Iran. I was wondering if you thought this image was appropriate for the article. If so, the caption needs to be re-written. I assume it is a forest of some kind, not a jungle. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It's oak scrub, and I put it in with the Mediterranean section.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
(Just saw this.) O.K. Good. Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

American black bear[edit]

Hello, Apokryltaros – I'm in the middle of reading American black bear, and I wanted to ask you about two things:

1) The last sentence of the first paragraph in the section American black bear#Taxonomy and evolution reads:

  • Reportedly, the sun bear is also a relatively recent split from this lineage.

I wanted to ask what you thought of the adverb "reportedly" at the beginning of the sentence. To me, it suggests that some scholars have claimed this, but it is likely untrue. I think it's a little ambiguous. If the situation is that there is some evidence to show this, but it is not conclusive, or is not yet widely accepted among scholars, perhaps it would be good if that could be said. What do you think?

2) The first two sentences of the last paragraph in American black bear#Taxonomy and evolution read:

  • The American black bear lived during the same period as short-faced bears (Arctodus simus and A. pristinus) and the Florida spectacled bear (Tremarctos floridanus). These Tremarctine bears evolved from bears that had emigrated from Asia to North America 7–8 ma.

I know Tremarctos floridanus is linked, but I wonder if a link could be added at "Tremarctine". I had never seen that word before and I wonder what it refers to.  – Corinne (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I swapped out "reportedly" for "According to recent studies," and I linked "Tremarctinae" for "Tremarctine"--Mr Fink (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


You left an edit summary about him being a vandal if I read correctly. How can you tell he is a vandal? I kinda failed to see what vandalism he has done. If he is, shouldn't he be reported at Wikipedia intervention against vandalism? As a side note, he has no user or talkpage. (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Among other things, I can tell s/he/it is a vandal because Pkym1 went out of its way to insert crude hoax information in Aojia in order to deliberately direct readers to its hoax page, "Yiran," among other things. If one can not describe such a deliberately unconstructive editor as a "vandal," then, what would you suggest as a more apt descriptor? Furthermore, considering as how Pkym1's last edit was from 2014, I clearly think it would be a blatant fool's errand to submit what would be a blatant "stale report" to Wikipedia Intervention Against Vandalism, especially since Pkym1 does not appear to be a sleeper account of a sockpuppet.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


I added the information to the Entelodon page because someone linked it as "Killer Warthog" on the Dino-Riders page. For all I know, that person though the Entelodon was the closest match that they can use for that name. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source to confirm this identification?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hide Virus[edit]

Is your PC all right? Can you hide the edit on Evolution of cetaceans so no one, maybe a child, looking in the page history goes to the malware site? 2600:1:F187:7808:EDC1:6892:78BB:761F (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I would if I was an administrator, which I am not.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


Hello, Mr Fink – Can you take a look at this edit to Helianthus? The added sentence is neither sourced nor in what I would call the right place in the article. I suppose an argument could be made that "sunflowers in art" would be a good section to have, but the material would have to be sourced, and I doubt this editor is interested in finding and adding sources. I noticed that you had left a warning on this editor's talk page last fall. Do you feel like adding another?  – Corinne (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a non sequitor that really, truly, only applies to Helianthus anuus, so I removed it.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 02:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Extended evolutionary synthesis[edit]

Hello, Mr. Fink – I have Extended evolutionary synthesis on my watchlist even though the subject matter is a bit above my ability to fully comprehend all the ideas. I was reading through the article and I came across a few places that I thought were either unclear or didn't read smoothly. I made a few small changes in wording; hope you approve of those. I wanted to ask you about a few things.

1) The first sentence of the article is the following:

The extended evolutionary synthesis is a set of extensions of the earlier modern synthesis of evolutionary biology that took place between 1918 and 1942.

To someone in the field, this probably makes perfect sense, but to me, in order for something to "take place", it has to unequivocally be an event. I don't see any event here. I suppose it is implied by the noun "synthesis" or the noun "extensions", but to help the average Wikipedia reader, I wonder if this could be clarified somewhat. I could suggest a small change: adding "made" after "a set of extensions" and changing "of" to "to":

  • The extended evolutionary synthesis is a set of extensions made to of the earlier modern synthesis of evolutionary biology that took place between 1918 and 1942.

I don't know if this makes sense, or is accurate. You might suggest something different.

But again, we still have "the...synthesis...that took place". In this wording, the "synthesis" seems to have been an event, which is hard for me to grasp, especially since it took place over a period of twenty-four years. Perhaps "took place" could be changed to something else such as "was accomplished" or "carried out"?

response: "made to" sounds fine to me.
O.K., but what about my other question? Do you want to leave it as "took place" or substitute another verb such as "was accomplished" or "carried out", or something else? How about this? –
  • an earlier modern synthesis of evolutionary biology that was developed between 1918 and 1914.
(I changed "the" to "an". Unless it's absolutely necessary, it is best not to use "the" until the item has been introduced; also, who knows, it may have been the first of several. What do you think of "was developed"?  – Corinne (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
response: This sounds much better, actually.

2) In the section Extended evolutionary synthesis#The preceding "modern synthesis" is the following sentence:

The 19th-century ideas of natural selection by Darwin and Mendelian genetics were united by researchers who included Ronald Fisher, one of the three founders of population genetics, and J. B. S. Haldane and Sewall Wright, between 1918 and 1932.

I think something is not quite right with the wording of the first part of the sentence. There are two 19th-century ideas. One is "natural selection by Darwin" and the other is "Mendelian genetics". I think the phrases should, if possible, be made more parallel. In other words, change the first phrase to "Darwin's natural selection" or "Darwinian natural selection" to parallel "Mendelian genetics", or change "Mendelian genetics" so it becomes parallel to "natural selection by Darwin", which I think is more difficult to do. What do you think?

response: Since we have the adjective "Mendelian," style-sense would dictate the use of "Darwinian."

3) The first sentence in the section Extended evolutionary synthesis#Early history is the following:

During the 1950s, the English biologist C. H. Waddington called for an extended synthesis based from his research on epigenetics and genetic assimilation.

I wondered whether "based from" made sense to you. The more usual phrase is "based on". "Based from" would be more likely to be used in something like logistics. Also, the phrase "during the 1950s" suggests to me either that no one knows at what point in the 1950s Waddington called for an extended synthesis or that he called for an extended synthesis several times during the 1950s. Either way, I think it is vague. What do you think of changing "During the 1950s" to "In the 1950s"?

response: As far as I know, "based on" versus "based from" is a matter of style, though, I must agree that it would seem more reasonable to use the more frequently used "based on." As for "during" versus "in," I'd recommend keeping it as "during" unless until we can pinpoint a more specific timerange, but that's my own taste.

4) My next question is one of formatting. I noticed that in the section Extended evolutionary synthesis#Recent history, the items in the list are:

(a) bulleted, and
(b) begin with a capital letter and end with a period/full stop, and

in the section Extended evolutionary synthesis#Predictions, the items in the list are:

(a) numbered, and
(b) begin with a lower-case letter and end with no punctuation.

(a) Do you think the formatting in these two lists should be match, for consistency? Is there any strong reason for using different formatting? (By the way, the MoS says that lists are deprecated, but assuming we are leaving them as lists...)

(b) If we decide to make the formatting of the two lists consistent, which style do you prefer? My preference is for starting each item with a lower-case letter, ending with a semi-colon, and ending the final item with a period. I don't know which is better, numbering or bullets. I think I prefer bullets. Is there any reason why the items need to be numbered?

response: If we go with a bulleted list, I'd either go with a numbered list, or neither numbered nor lettered.
By "a bulleted list", I meant a list with a bullet at the beginning of each item. This is a bulleted list:
  • item one here;
  • item two here;
  • item three here; and
  • item four here.
(Can be punctuated as this one is, or can be written with no final punctuation.)
See MOS:LISTBULLET, particularly the fourth bulleted item: "Use numbers rather than bullets only if..." (See additional comments added above.)  – Corinne (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
response: I guess, then, go with a numbered list.

─────────────────────────You must have been in a hurry; you didn't read far enough. I'll copy the section from MOS:LISTBULLET:

* Use numbers rather than bullets only if:

  • A need to refer to the elements by number may arise;
  • The sequence of the items is critical; or
  • The numbering has some independent meaning, for example in a listing of musical tracks.

Do any of these apply?  – Corinne (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

reply: As far as I know, none apply.
O.K. Thanks. Then I think we should use bullets.  – Corinne (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

5) I don't see anywhere in the article an explanation of what a "synthesis" is (in this context). I think it would help readers if one sentence were added somewhere that explained what a synthesis is.

response: Agreed.
Great! It's got to be you who writes this sentence. I could write my own understanding of it, but it might not be quite right for this context.  – Corinne (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's all. Thanks for reading.  – Corinne (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Corinne: That was a marathon comment! Thank you!--Mr Fink (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Corinne:So far, so good.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll make the changes tomorrow. It's late, and I'm tired.  – Corinne (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • salute* (falls over)--Mr Fink (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


Just wondered if you had ever seen a picture of a huge statue of a Megatheria. See Altiplano Cundiboyacense.  – Corinne (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Hoplophoneus and Paleobiology Database[edit]

(diff: [1]) Hello. Are you aware where age ranges on the Paleobiology Database come from? Stas (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

And how does that justify replacing the age range with an estimate that would mislead a reader to assume the genus was restricted to 30 million years ago?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
"Age ranges" on Paleobiology Database / Fossilworks refer to divisions of geologic time scale where fossils of the taxon were found (and usually according to obsolete versions of the chronostratigraphic chart). "Misleading of the reader" is presenting these ranges as the time of taxon existence. Stas (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


Hello, Apokryltaros – I don't know if you are watching Columbidae, but I thought you might like to see this: Talk:Columbidae#What insanity is this? Bring Pigeon back into the title ASAP.  – Corinne (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds too much like a whiny brat to bother engaging in my opinion.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
O.K. I think the issue he raised was addressed in an earlier discussion anyway.  – Corinne (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


Your artwork is amazing! I remember seeing Brontornis and several others while reading, but I assumed someone had uploaded scans from a book. Keep it up! Inatan (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! I'm in the process of revising Brontornis, in fact.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Pyrenean ibex[edit]

I understand. (Though I am going to keep it 2003 in my head.) (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


Hello, Apokryltaros – I was just skimming the article on Pleiotropy, and I came across a sentence that didn't sound right. It is the third sentence in the section Pleiotropy#Albinism:

  • The mutation alters the production of melanin and which affects traits all throughout the organism.

Shouldn't this be something like:

  • The mutation alters the production of melanin, and which affects traits all throughout the organism.

?  – Corinne (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

2) I've got to ask you about something else in the same article. It's this sentence, which appears in the middle of the second paragraph in Pleiotropy#Autism and schizophrenia:

  • These particular studies instead show clustering of these diseases within patients themselves or families.

I don't understand the presence of the word "instead" here. "Instead" introduces some kind of contrast, and I don't see the contrast. Instead of what?  – Corinne (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

For the sentence in Albinism, I opted to replace the linking clauses with something better. As for the Autism and schizophrenia, I couldn't understand the use of "instead," either, so I decided to be bold and remove it. It may be a remnant of a previous version of that section.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks! I'm going to change "dependant" to "dependent". (I know it was there before your edit.)  – Corinne (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Salute.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Is it "melanin-related and [melanin]-dependent traits", or "melanin-related and dependent traits"? If it is really the former, I think there should be a hyphen at the beginning of "dependent". It if is the latter, perhaps the addition of "other" before "dependent" would make the sentence clearer:

(a) melanin-related and -dependent traits

(b) melanin-related and other dependent traits

(c) melanin-related and [?] dependent traits

I think a) or b) would work: probably b).--Mr Fink (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

3) Does "Myosin heavy polypeptide 4 gene" in Pleiotropy#"Mini-muscle" allele need to be in italics?  – Corinne (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I need your help to find an image that I saw around the same time as I was copy-editing Pleitropy, but now I can't find it. I wanted to copy it and paste it into my collection of interesting images, a sub-page on my user page. It is a [probably computer-drawn] graphic image showing how the genes and chromosomes are the same for a lowly bacterium (or something small like that) and a mouse embryo are the same. It shows the gene/chromosome sequencing in the middle, the bacterium at the top and the mouse embryo at the bottom. The genes or chromosomes are color-coded, so you can see that they are in basically the same order in the bacterium and the mouse embryo. I searched through the article on Pleitropy for links to articles that would contain that image, but I couldn't find the right one. Have you seen that image? Do you know where it is?  – Corinne (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't seen it, and searching through the edit history didn't bring up anything I could notice. Sorry.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, O.K. Thanks. How about item 3), above?  – Corinne (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, no, no it doesn't as far as I know.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks. I'll fix that. Oh, I just found the image. It's the lead image in Evolutionary developmental biology.  – Corinne (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
One more question. I noticed in the section Pleiotropy#"Mini-muscle" allele that "Mini Muscle Mice" is capitalized several times even though "mini-muscle" is not capitalized in the first line of the paragraph and "muscle" is not capitalized in the section heading. "Mini Muscle Mice" makes it seem as if the mice are patented, or a detail from Mickey Mouse slipped in here. What do you think?  – Corinne (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
If it's not patented, I guess uncapitalize, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Mechanism (biology)[edit]

I just came across an article that looks like it could use some work. It is Mechanism (biology).  – Corinne (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

IP has returned, with same shtick[edit]

The Giglioli's whale IP is back, you may be interested: Special:Contributions/ Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


I wonder if you could comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Miteloot reported by User:BeywheelzLetItRip. I left a comment, but I think the edit warring was a little silly, with unhelpful edit summaries on both sides. I suppose the administrators can address that, but I do wonder why a quote mentioning MtDNA is included when mitochondrial DNA is mentioned nowhere in the article.  – Corinne (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, since I had never seen the (red) user name of one of the parties before, I took a look at an edit made to Ket people by that same editor. What do you think of this edit?  – Corinne (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I should comment there, if only because I'm not sure what to comment about, and that your comment was very helpful. MtDNA is sometimes mentioned in these sorts of articles as one form of tracing and confirming ancestry, given as how in chordates, one's MtDNA is inherited from one's mother. As for the Ket people edit, I think it's a matter of personal taste. Personally, I prefer the previous one, if only because it's not a picture of a picture, but the one he swapped to seems equally useful, too, in my opinion.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks. I agree that either photo is all right.  – Corinne (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Species vs population of organisms[edit]

I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Dire wolf#Species vs population of organisms.  – Corinne (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Apokryltaros. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)


Do you happen to remember the previous names this character operated under? I'd like to link them if possible, and it would be great to be able to G4 anything they make in the future under any other sock. ♠PMC(talk) 02:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe [2] was one. If you can search through its contributions to see what pages it created but were deleted and see if any were drafts, that would confirm it. I will search for others and let you know of my progress.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Deltasaurus did have some deleted drafts, but he didn't recreate the two that User:Atesfaye had created (Draft:Notohippus & Draft:Archeohyrax). Still sketchy though. I'll keep an eye out. I don't know if you're a regular in dinosaur topic areas but if you see these kinds of hoaxes crop up again let me know. ♠PMC(talk) 05:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
He also uses IPs, when he returns, I will let you know ASAP.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Cool :) ♠PMC(talk) 06:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm certain I've seen this individual before using IPs to create new dinosaur articles on their respective talk pages (in other words, I've seen many of them listed as WP:CSD#G8 candidates). It might be worth starting a WP:LTA page for this individual to help keep track of the problem. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Good point!--Mr Fink (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Edgar181: and @Premeditated Chaos:, I found another IP, (talk · contribs · WHOIS)--Mr Fink (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It’s that time again....[edit]

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)

Atsme📞📧 13:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Time To Spread A Little
Happy Holiday Cheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree
in the spirit of the season.

What's especially nice about
this digitized version:
*it doesn't need water
*won't catch fire
*and batteries aren't required.
Enjoy the Holidays

and have a prosperous New Year!!

🍸🎁 🎉
Thank you very much!--Mr Fink (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


Hello, Apokryltaros – Is there any chance an image could be found for Acristatherium?  – Corinne (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Like a photo of the holotype or a reconstruction?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Maybe one of each? Have you painted an artist's reconstruction of it?  – Corinne (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I have not yet made a reconstruction of it. We could ask other editors, like @FunkMonk: about how to go about getting permission for the photos from the paper.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


Hello, Apokryltaros – First, let me wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! I had nothing to do, so I copy-edited Nutrient, which was selected as this week's "Today's article for improvement". I wonder, if you get a chance, if you could check the changes I made to be sure I did not introduce any factual errors. If you see other things that can be improved, feel free to work on the article. I thought "bulk energy" was not very clear to the average WP reader, so I removed "bulk" in one of my first edits. I also thought "co-factors" was not clear, either, but I left it since I didn't know what else to put. I thought there was a little repetition (near the beginning of the article), so cut out a little to make it more concise. See what you think.  – Corinne (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. So far, I don't see anything wrong with your edits with Nutrient.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks for looking at it.  – Corinne (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Merry Christmas and thanks for all your good work, hope you're having a relaxing time during this period and that next year will be even better for us all here.★Trekker (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Hopefully, it will be more productive, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


Mexico City New Years 2013! (8333128248).jpg Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 14:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Strange days indeed[edit]

Check out the new user page. William Harris • (talk) • 05:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[[

Indeed. Though, I think I'll personally refrain from comment for now, what with karma being an active and snooping entity here in the 'Pedia.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Pete is a dog wolf cat. --NeilN talk to me 06:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I had already left "a quiet word" on the Talk page; I expect that an amendment will be made soon. William Harris • (talk) • 06:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi. I know it's not that big of an issue, but don't you think it's important the article includes the different ways it is depicted in popular media? Moreover when it's on a popular film that's known precisely for its special effects in portraying creatures like the Kraken and Medusa. Just want to read your thoughts and rationale. Thanks. Thief12 (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Harryhausen's Kraken is already discussed in Kraken in popular culture, and mention of it is not necessary for the section "Appearance and origins".--Mr Fink (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


Hello, Apokryltaros – I'm just about to begin a copy-edit of Dilophosaurus in response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. I was glancing through the article and looking at the images when I saw something I've got to ask you about. I noticed in the section Dilophosaurus#Motion that the caption for the image at the left begins:

  • Restoration of Dilophosaurus in resting pose

Is this use of "restoration" different from the meaning of a putting back together, making something that had been damaged whole again? I don't remember seeing "restoration" used to describe an artist's rendering (based on skeletal remains but still using the imagination), or re-creation, of something. Then I noticed the word "restoration" is used in several other captions throughout the remainder of the article. Are they all appropriate uses of the word? Or would you substitute another word for at least some of them? If so, please either let me know here, or wait until I've finished copy-editing to make any changes because I'm about to start copy-editing now.  – Corinne (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the Dilophosaurus#Paleoecology section now, and in the second paragraph there is a list of organisms, each followed by a reference. I always thought the rule was "punctuation goes before references", but here I see the comma follows the reference, but the reference follows the final period/full stop. I'm changing it to comma followed by reference, but is this putting of the comma after the reference something specific to biology/paleontology articles? Am I going to need to change them back?  – Corinne (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC) I decided to wait for your reply before changing the punctuation. FunkMonk You may be interested in these comments.  – Corinne (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, at least one source states "restoration" is used for depictions of the live animals, whereas "reconstruction" is for illustrations that show their whole skeletons. But the terms are sometimes used interchangeably. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks FunkMonk. Please keep going, @Corinne:. Looking good so far.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks also, FunkMonk. How about the placement of commas – before or after the reference – in the list of items in Dilophosaurus#Paleoecology?  – Corinne (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
After the commas.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.  – Corinne (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Didn't know that about commas, so I'm fine if you change it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
You were always a comma comma chameleon about these things to begin with.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


Not sure why you reverted my edit. It was not easy to see the links to the more informative artcles and I think my edit was an improvement. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: I reverted your edit because you don't put a list with bullets in the lede like that.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. It's helpful to other editors if you can explain why you revert an edit. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Winged scapula[edit]

A while back, I left a comment at User talk:Jytdog/Archive 25#Winged scapula. Perhaps I took too long to get to my question, or perhaps Jytdog had more pressing concerns, but he never responded or made any edit to the article. It's not a major issue. I just thought that the captions could be clearer to help non-expert readers. I wonder if you would take a look at it and see if you agree, and make any necessary edits to the captions. You don't have to reply there; I don't want to bother Jytdog anymore.  – Corinne (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Either caption of either photos are fine: though, in my opinion, I recommend we ditch the b&w photo and replace it with a color photo of someone with normal scapulae, as a "compare and contrast" kind of situation.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
In Scapula#Scapular fractures, you don't think it would help non-experts if the caption read,
(a) Example of a winged scapula (left), or
(b) Image of a winged scapula (left), or
(c) A winged scapula (left), or
(d) Note winged scapula at left.
In Winged scapula#Signs and symptoms, I agree that the black-and-white image should be removed and a photo of two normal scapulae (is that the plural?) be added for comparison. How does one go about finding such a photo? Just search Google images? (I may have asked you this before; if so, I have forgotten.) In the color image that should stay, do you think it's clear enough that it is the right-hand scapula that is winged, or winging? Do you prefer "winging" or "winged"?  – Corinne (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd go with (c). I'd search on WikiCommons rather than Google, as very few of the pictures found on Google can be used, either by being not free-use, or having watermarks that obscure details. And I'd use "winged," as it matches the page title.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks. I guess for the "normal" photo for comparison purposes, we'd just look for a photo of anyone's back with normal scapulae. Is that right?  – Corinne (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
And who's willing to allow it for use in Wikipedia, yes.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for that[edit]

I was having a bad day — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. You need to be more careful in what you say in your edit summaries. Other editors are within their rights and duties to revert edits that they see or assume as being incorrect, or incorrectly inserted, and to demand that they be blocked for putting in errors because they have challenged you to properly support your edits in order to keep the page in readably working order will lead other editors to confuse you with some of the more aggressive vandals.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, Have a good day — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Most recent american lion weight[edit]

This study from 2016 have different weights and give a maximum 363kg for the american lion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Except that the paper you're using as reference is not yet officially published.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


I don't know if you're aware of this or if this is the same person as you but there's a new user who's copied a section of your user page onto theirs and is taking credit for creating the pictures. TripleRoryFan (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Former endangerment of Steller's sea cow[edit]

Thank you for noticing my edit and writing a good edit summary. Sadly, you are right. However, it is not to late to consider it as having been endangered, nor too late to learn from the causes of the Steller's sea cow's extinction. I assume this is why the IUCN has maintained a database entry on it for the past thirty years. It is why I categorized it; the Category:Endangered species by reason they are threatened subcategories include extinct species by policy. HLHJ (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more accurate or prudent to place it in a similar category of species made extinct through food/hunting?
As there are a fair number of species going extinct, and some that are declared extinct and then rediscovered, often several times, it would mean a lot of recategorization. Do you think it would be worth the extra work? There are some separate categories to show that a species is extinct, although admittedly intersections of categories are not much searched-by; I can see both arguments. There is also the problem that many extinct and endangered species have multiple threats, and it's hard to attribute the extinction to any one of them, so we'd need title something like "Species endangered by X that subsequently went extinct". Perhaps Category:Species endangered by use as raw materials might be relevant too, because of the leather; I missed that. HLHJ (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Sounds fair, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the most succinctly productive edit discussion. I'm tempted to copy it to Category talk:Endangered species by reason they are threatened for future reference; I had the same first idea about those categories, too. HLHJ (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't have rolled back my topic[edit]

Adding a note discussing whether or not tadpole shrimp are true shrimp would be an improvement. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Will Pittenger:, tadpole shrimps' placement within Subphylum Crustacea has been already been determined over a century and a half ago, i.e., that they are in the class Branchiopoda, of the order Notostraca, and are not a "true shrimp," i.e., any decapod malacostracan that hasn't already been designated a "lobster," "crab" or "crayfish." That, and "shrimp" is a common name often bandied about to refer to any elongated crustacean. Having said those, I don't see how or why it would be necessary to start up a forum thread to question established taxonomy simply because one wishes to note the obvious fact of how tadpole shrimp superficially resemble horseshoe crabs.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Range block[edit]

I removed both of the IP6's your reported; I've blocked 2602:252:D06:1790:0:0:0:0/64, which will catch both of those and any others in the immediate vicinity he rotates to. Let me know if you see him pop up anywhere else. Kuru (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you!--Mr Fink (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


The user you reverted there [[3]]seems from his past contributions to be a vandalism only account. Could you report or block him if this is true? (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


Could you please block that user? He seems to be doing only one thing: remove "Palaeosauriscus", "Palaeosaurus" and "P." sternbergi from the List of dinosaur genera page. Many people have undone his edits before but he still continues to remove them anyway. He's done this more than 10 times on different IP addresses ( might be another one). I think repeated reversions isn't enough. I think it's time to block him. Atlantis536 (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I would block him (and many, many, many other IPs) if I were an admin, but I will report him, at least. Ad Orientem has already blocked the IP.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Precious two years![edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Mazeltov.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for thanking me. I appreciate it. Rock on. UnsungKing123 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, we, Paladins of Notability, need to stick together, after all.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Ecnomiohyla rabborum extinction[edit]

Hi, I just noticed your edit to Ecnomiohyla_rabborum, and I'm familiar with your high-quality edits in other pages. Could you weigh in on Talk:Ecnomiohyla_rabborum#A_need_for_consistency_in_Extinction? I find the lack of consistency within the page and between the page and taxonbox bothersome, and hoped you might have suggestions of a unified way to handle this. Depressingly, this subject is likely to have impact beyond the page, as more species go extinct and we need to know how to handle the page before the final IUCN ruling. HCA (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism to Extinct Hawaiian Avifauna Pages[edit]

Aloha - I see you're helping to revert instances of vandalism to pages that are near and dear to me also. I'd like to make sure that I'm on the same page as you. The proper Conservation Status for the targeted species (that is, birds extinct prior to European contact) is typically "Fossil" as opposed to "Extinct" or "Extinct (prehistoric)", yes? And the Temporal Range for species that are thought to have gone extinct after human arrival (but prior to European contact) is "Late Holocene" -- correct?

Kiwikiu (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Mahalo: Pretty much you are correct.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Upon doing some additional research I see that the Wikipedia:Conservation_status page specifically states that "most ... Hawaiian Honeycreeper" extinctions are to be referred to as "Prehistoric" rather than either "Fossil" or "Extinct" -- excluding, of course, post-contact Honeycreeper extinctions. Do you feel that I am misinterpreting this guideline if I were to change such species' conservation statuses from "Extinct" to "Prehistoric"? I'm a little confused since so many species that have gone extinct around the world in the past several thousand years are marked "Extinct" even though the guidelines clearly suggest this is incorrect -- that "Extinct" should be reserved for those species whose remains are unambiguously fossilized (typically requiring tens of thousands of years, at a minimum) which would exclude virtually all Hawaiian specimens. Kiwikiu (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
From my experience, there are no set guidelines. Ideally, "Extinct" should be used for species that went extinct during historical times and, ideally whose living occurrences were more or less well documented, i.e., an unequivocal oral tradition, written accounts, specimens collected, or accurate, unambiguous depictions in art. "Prehistoric" would be species known from prehistoric human trash middens, or those that went extinct during historical times, but whose existences were not known until someone excavated its remains. "Fossil" would be those species known from remains dating from the Early Holocene or earlier.
Personally, I like to just leave the conservation status blank, under (my) given excuse that "it's a paperweight now." Unless, of course, there is an imperative to give it a conservation status, like, say, the situation of Cryptoprocta spelea. In my opinion, I recommend giving the prehistoric Hawaiian birds known from the Early Holocene the status of "Fossil," and giving those Hawaiian birds that went extinct during the Late Holocene as either "Extinct" or "Prehistoric." Check at the IUCN site, too, to make sure.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eoanabas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Climbing perch (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This good enoight to convine you that troodon is 66 MYA/65 MYA[edit]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talkcontribs)

@Bubblesorg: Why can't you look for it in a scientific journal, like through ?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bugglesorg: Did you notice that the paper does not mention Troodon as among the eleven dinosaur taxa found there?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

15:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)sorry wrong article 15:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Pectinodon is troodon it is Troodon bakker

I had a concern on one of your at pieces[edit]

One of the Dunkleosteus Paleo art drawings might not be accurate as some new evidence. I heard this in a Paleontology YouTube channel i am subscribed to called Trey the Explainer. I later checked and i found a forum and an article of Dunkleosteus having lips. I do Admire your art however I do want to bring this into consideration encase you need to redo it. I know evidence of this is at the mement just speculation with just a few pieces of evidence.

Peer review papers only (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No offense intended, but I'm planning on waiting until there is more evidence found about Dunkleosteus and similar arthrodires having lips, first. Thank you for the heads up, though.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Bubblesorg (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)I created a wikipedia article on Balaenoptera bertae. I saw a piece f aleo art and i was thinking of using it. I am not sure if it protected or not. If you could create a simple art work for the page or get permisson from the original creator it would be great. if not Its Ok. And no I am not offended on the Placoderm Lips decision I understand that you are waiting on more evidence. Thanks. (Bubblesorg (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC))If you could leave a response that would be great

It would also be nice to remember that I have a life outside of Wikipedia and to understand that I kind of have to portion how much time I can devote to stuff, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(Bubblesorg (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)) I know that. I did not say you had to do it. I said it would be great if you could help me ou on somethings. Sorry if I was vague. I was just giving a suggestion. By the way thanks for checking my article.

What thing do you use to make your art?[edit]

What software do you use. If you could let me know please provide a link as that would be very helpful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talkcontribs)

I draw them out on paper by hand using pencil, followed by pen, then I scan them and color them with Adobe Photoshop CS2--Mr Fink (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your work[edit]

I stumbled across a couple of disruptive edits to NZ exinct bird pages, which I've undone, and then noticed you've been hard at work reverting more in this series of anonymous edits to lots of fossil bird articles, from someone with some odd ideas about the timing of Polynesian arrival and extinctions. Thanks for doing this! I find it hard to understand the mindset of a persistent fixated vandal. I just hope they get tired of being reverted. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the kind praise, it's greatly appreciated. Unfortunately, this particular vandal is persistent, stupid enough to assume it knows better than original sources, and also likes to engage in genuine vandalisms. I think it learns, though, eventually, as it finally got the picture after two or three months of reverting that inserting "Pleistocene" in prehistoric Hawaiian animals won't be tolerated because the Hawaiian fauna did not exist until the islands emerged at the start of the Holocene. Hopefully, it won't be as infuriatingly persistent as the "Disney's Pete is a wolf" vandal, who's been trying to insert his original research opinions into Wikipedia for over 10 years now.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

New Page Patrol?[edit]

Hi Apokryltaros,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, I will consider it.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Need your eyes...[edit]

Would you look at this edit - is it correct? Atsme📞📧 18:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe so, yes.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Inanna and Athena[edit]

Regarding this edit you made to Inanna, there actually is good evidence for a connection between Inanna and Athena and the subject has been extensively discussed in scholarly sources. Walter Burkert mentions Ishtar in his description of Athena in his classic 1985 work Greek Religion. Charles Penglase writes at length about similarities between them in his 1994 scholarly monograph Greek Myths and Mesopotamia: Parallels and Influence in the Homeric Hymns and Hesiod, where he devotes a whole chapter to the subject, titled "The Birth of Athena." Susan Deacy discusses Penglase's analysis in her 2008 book Athena and accepts his propositions. The main evidence for a connection is that Inanna and Athena are both fierce warrior goddesses who are frequently shown dressed in armor and bearing weapons. Both goddesses are also have important roles in their respective pantheons as enforcers of divine justice, and both are associated with creation in various forms.

There are even similarities between Inanna's return from the Underworld and Athena's birth from the head of Zeus. For instance, the Greek word used to describe the place from which Athena springs means "peak," in reference to the peak of Zeus's head; the Mesopotamians, however, envisioned the entrance to the Underworld as a mountain, so Inanna's return from the Underworld presents her springing from a literal mountain peak. The fact that Athena is born fully-clothed is also reflective of what Penglase calls the "dressing motif" in Mesopotamian literature, wherein a hero or deity's power is conveyed by their clothing and lack of power is shown by nakedness. When Inanna enters the Underworld, her clothes are stripped away, but, when she exits, they are restored. Athena being born fully clothed therefore seems to reflect a Mesopotamian motif that was at least sometimes associated with Inanna. Athena was not always a virgin goddess either; notice the bizarre legend of the birth of Erichthonius, which seems to have been invented in the classical era to explain an older, archaic story in which Erichthonius is actually Athena's literal son.

On the whole, however, Athena is clearly very different from Inanna in a number of significant ways and, although Athena may have been influenced by Inanna at an early stage in her development, she originated separately as an Aegean palace goddess. Aphrodite certainly has a much stronger case as Inanna's "Greek equivalent," since she actually originated from her and the specific similarities between them are both striking and undeniable. (e.g. Both were uniquely honored with dove sacrifices; both were shown bearing weapons; both had an androgynous form; both were venerated as "Heavenly"; both were associated with love, beauty, and sexuality, etc.) The Greeks themselves also equated Aphrodite with Ishtar; for instance, Herodotus glosses "Ishtar" with "Aphrodite" and the second-century novelist Iamblichus, who wrote exclusively in Greek but was purportedly a native Syrian, only refers to his native goddess Ishtar as "Aphrodite." --Katolophyromai (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone has falsely claimed copyright on your work[edit]

User:Hiolif (who is suspected to be a sockpuppet of User:Lapitavenator) has uploaded File:Anarthraspis chamberlini.jpg to wikipedia claiming to be the copyright holder, when clearly you are the copyright holder of this work. I'm not sure what the best course of action is so I thought I'd let you know. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, it should be deleted because I did not give permission or authorization to have it posted. Thank you for informing me.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

orcinus size[edit]

Orcinus size chart

So whats wrong?--Bubblesorg (talk) 05:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It's poorly designed, the details are too small and unclear, and the dark gray makes everything even more unclear.--Mr Fink (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

should i make it bigger? also i will take the grey out.--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Make it bigger, crop more, and take the awful looking gray out.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean i got rid of the grey?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubblesorg (talkcontribs)

It's still gray.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

? i updated it and it is white on my screen. --Bubblesorg (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC) dude i changed it i tryed updating it again doe it still look grey?--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It is still gray.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Tag you added on User:Lapitavenator[edit]

User:Lavalizard101 was confirmed by CheckUser at SPI to be unrelated to Lapitavenator and friends. (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Except that some of his sock accounts, like Iceiguana13 are also confirmed to be socks of Lapitavenator.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Iceiguana13 was reported at the SPI page for Lapitavenator, and, to quote the page, "These four accounts [Iceiguana13 & three others] are Unrelated to Lapitavenator. [...] Please create a new case with Lavalizard101 as the master." (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

OK the giant thresher shark[edit]

it is called the giant thresher shark. Most media calls it that like this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by bubblesorg (talkcontribs)

Um, a forum and Deviantart aren't "most media"--Mr Fink (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Its not just a fourm i put another link--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

They still are not reliable sources. A reliable source would be an academic paper or a commonly read book.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Lowland kagu and others[edit]

They are back then! A few blocks handed out - probably only a token gesture. Protected Lowland kagu for a month, then pending changes. I think I've already done similar to all the other pages a while ago! If it gets too much with PC, then ping me and we'll put a long semi-protect on. Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Blue macaw[edit]

I think that guy mixed up Hyacinth macaw with Spix's macaw (Cyanopsitta spixii) aka the Little Blue Macaw which may be Extinct in the wild (EW), but is still surviving in captivity. It is therefore not extinct. Hyacinth macaw is, as you wrote, still VU. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there was a recent magazine article about one of the blue macaw species being extinct in the wild leading to this spike in vandalisms in those pages.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I see, well that explains, I guess its not pure vandalism then, one has to Assume good faith.. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


I can see your great interest in Zoology, did you ever look into the project Wikispecies? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I've come across it, I'll look into it.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Ankalagon saurognathus.JPG[edit]

Can you descript the order in which the species mentioned are depicted, please?--Yellow Horror (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Conus huttoni, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquitanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

check this out[edit] (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Your drawings[edit]

I like your drawings. I make drawings too, like on my userpage, but yours are way better. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'm lagging behind in coloring mine.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


Howdy - just noticed that this is completely unreferenced, and apparently always has been. Did you have something on hand for sourcing? Looks a lil' naked at the moment :) Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Will get on it, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Apokryltaros. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Apokryltaros. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


I just returned it to the status quo ante the recent changes. We need to reflect whatever the reference said. Editor2020 (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

How does using the general term for both dinosaurs as "sauropod" contradict the reference? (To say nothing about how not capitalizing and not italicizing Diplodocus and Apatosaurus would go against status quo) I mean, it isn't a direct quote from the source, is it?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I have failed to explain properly. I just returned the article to the way it was, without changing anything. If the reference says sauropod I'm fine with that. Editor2020 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)